Wrongful Convictions Of Eyewitness Testimony
Amit Erez
Professor Huppin
Communication Studies 170
April 16, 2016 Thought Paper #1 Studies show that eyewitness testimony is the greatest cause of wrongful convictions to date. Prosecutors don’t always rely on physical evidence to land a conviction. Rather, they often focus on verbal evidence, such as witness statements and confessions, to sway jurors in their favor. It has been shown that juries are significantly more likely to bring forth a guilty verdict if there is eyewitness corroboration of the crime. Although eyewitness testimony has proven unreliable time and time again, and many convictions have been overturned due to contradictory evidence, jurors still unduly place faith in this sort of evidence. Jurors must become informed …show more content…
Troy Davis was a man convicted, and later executed for murder, in a case that hinged solely upon eyewitness evidence. There were nine witnesses that testified against Davis, seven of which would later go on to recant. Not only do the witnesses’ inconsistent statements reveal the discrepancies in this case, but police were also repeatedly accused of pressuring people into testifying that Davis committed the crime. These factors alone should have been enough to dismiss the charges against Mr. Davis. But, in addition to these appalling revelations, it was also discovered that witnesses were permitted to interact and inevitably sync stories. If this doesn’t prove how unreliable the evidence in this case was, I don’t know what does. Yet, the jurors in this case still returned a verdict of …show more content…
Such evidence being admissible in court comes with grave implications. Not only does eyewitness testimony account for many wrongful convictions, but it also leaves the real perpetrators out on the streets, to commit the same crimes. It often puts innocent people behind bars and leaves families to deal with heartache and confusion. Lastly, it reiterates the flawed idea that humans’ recall ability is trustworthy and that our memories cannot deceive us. Because there is an unacceptably high risk that witnesses might get something wrong, we must take action by reforming justice system procedures and urging juries not to place their full faith in eyewitness testimonies. The standard for criminal cases is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and this sort of evidence just doesn’t cut it. Although we can’t get rid of witnesses altogether, there are a number of common sense procedures that investigators can implement to reduce the likelihood of misidentifications. One approach that can be taken is the “double-blind” line-up. This procedure ensures that eyewitness ID’s are as accurate as possible. An independent investigator (one who is not involved and has no knowledge of the case) would start by instructing the witness that the suspect may or may not be included in the lineup. This reduces the pressure on a witness to identify someone. The
Professor Huppin
Communication Studies 170
April 16, 2016 Thought Paper #1 Studies show that eyewitness testimony is the greatest cause of wrongful convictions to date. Prosecutors don’t always rely on physical evidence to land a conviction. Rather, they often focus on verbal evidence, such as witness statements and confessions, to sway jurors in their favor. It has been shown that juries are significantly more likely to bring forth a guilty verdict if there is eyewitness corroboration of the crime. Although eyewitness testimony has proven unreliable time and time again, and many convictions have been overturned due to contradictory evidence, jurors still unduly place faith in this sort of evidence. Jurors must become informed …show more content…
Troy Davis was a man convicted, and later executed for murder, in a case that hinged solely upon eyewitness evidence. There were nine witnesses that testified against Davis, seven of which would later go on to recant. Not only do the witnesses’ inconsistent statements reveal the discrepancies in this case, but police were also repeatedly accused of pressuring people into testifying that Davis committed the crime. These factors alone should have been enough to dismiss the charges against Mr. Davis. But, in addition to these appalling revelations, it was also discovered that witnesses were permitted to interact and inevitably sync stories. If this doesn’t prove how unreliable the evidence in this case was, I don’t know what does. Yet, the jurors in this case still returned a verdict of …show more content…
Such evidence being admissible in court comes with grave implications. Not only does eyewitness testimony account for many wrongful convictions, but it also leaves the real perpetrators out on the streets, to commit the same crimes. It often puts innocent people behind bars and leaves families to deal with heartache and confusion. Lastly, it reiterates the flawed idea that humans’ recall ability is trustworthy and that our memories cannot deceive us. Because there is an unacceptably high risk that witnesses might get something wrong, we must take action by reforming justice system procedures and urging juries not to place their full faith in eyewitness testimonies. The standard for criminal cases is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and this sort of evidence just doesn’t cut it. Although we can’t get rid of witnesses altogether, there are a number of common sense procedures that investigators can implement to reduce the likelihood of misidentifications. One approach that can be taken is the “double-blind” line-up. This procedure ensures that eyewitness ID’s are as accurate as possible. An independent investigator (one who is not involved and has no knowledge of the case) would start by instructing the witness that the suspect may or may not be included in the lineup. This reduces the pressure on a witness to identify someone. The